The issue was over a bill to fund health coverage for 9/11 rescue workers and victims suffering from chronic illnesses. Hoping to avoid Republicans tacking on poison pill amendments to the bill (including a proposed bill to deny coverage to "illegal aliens" affected by 9/11 [WTF?!]), the Democrats sought a two thirds majority vote. A majority of the House did vote for the bill, including a number of Republicans, but it was not enough for a two thirds majority. Apparently Weiner was reacting to Republican complaints about borrowing money to pay for the program (these are the same Republicans who thought nothing of funding $600 billion in tax cuts for the wealthy with borrowed money, or funding over-seas military adventures with borrowed money).
From our own Padre Mickey over on Facebook:
Indeed they are!
Poster chrenson at Political Animal posted the best comment of the week:
Don't you people get it? The tax cuts for the wealthy are working! Just look at the facts:
1] Unemployment among the wealthy has never been lower!
2] Homelessness among t...he wealthy is at an all time low!
3] America's wealthy have the best health insurance in the world!
4] Not a single wealthy son or daughter has died in Afghanistan!
5] The wealthy are weathering the economic blip just fine!
I tell you, those tax cuts are working!
Indeed they are!
An encore performance for Fox News:
September 11th is an ongoing local story here. Every single one of the people who worked at Ground Zero in the moments, days, and weeks that followed the attack is sick. At least one has already died from post 9/11 illnesses. The ongoing cost to the city is enormous. People here are furious that this did not pass, including the mayor. The Democrats took a procedural risk to avoid poison pill amendments and lost. The local Republican delegation (which claim to have supported the bill in the teeth of party leadership opposition) failed to to deliver votes or to soften the opposition of their party. I think what you are seeing is frustration and exasperation over the failure of a bill that New York really counted on.
So if I can get this straight, the 2/3 vote procedure was to avoid any amendment to the bill, or just bad amendments?
I must say that I love Wiener. He's like a Feist dog. He grabs hold and just won't let go!
It was to block any amendments. The Dems took a gamble, which might have been foolish in retrospect.
But still, that this bill should even have opposition or controversy is just amazing
I entirely agree.
Or should that be "I agree entirely."?
Post a Comment